Zinns of Omission

you should be as careful as I am in regard to your sources.

Cornell? The writer is Icelandic, and is quoting Icelandic texts.

“Revision”? What? As in 400 years ago?

looking back on this, you should never have been able to bring up another tangent but kept to the initial matter. But that is what leftists do. Muddy the waters.

Your entire accusation was a tangent.

And you never answered my question in response: What leftist defends the Catholic Church?

That was something even you weren’t willing to do. Because you didn’t know your facts.

Via The Hill:

A Christopher Columbus statue in Rhode Island was found vandalized with red paint on Columbus Day, days after a similar incident in San Francisco in protest of the federal holiday.

The statue in Providence was covered in paint, with the word “genocide” on it, and was accompanied by a sign saying “stop celebrating genocide,” CNN reported.

Red paint was splashed onto the statue in San Francisco on Saturday night, with graffiti that read: “Destroy all monuments of genocide and kill all colonizers,” CNN reported.

Police in both cities have said they are investigating the incidents, according to CNN.

idiot leftists

tell you what lefties. YOu have such a problem with Columbus then GO TO WORK on Columbus day. Don’t sit home on your lying whiny butts complaining about everything American and the president while you collect a days pay for doing NOTHING.

A leftist is someone who says false things about Christian Churches.

Caroline, was there a Church you said false things about?

An honest person would at least recant them.

What in the Holy Hell are you blathering about, AS?

It’s like listening to my Apache Professor again telling me that when the Pope kisses the ground, he’s just sniffing for Gold.

Caroline should be honest about how screwed up this statement was.

Criticizing Zinn doesn’t seem fair, when your recounting of history is just as bad as his.

Zinn was an inveterate LIAR and the book that I referenced on another thread proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt…at least to anyone who’s not married to Zinn’s false narrative.

A leftist is someone who advocates the principles of the left. Abortion, open borders, lgbtqrstuvwxyz support, transgender support, fascism, humanism, atheism, environmentalism, feminism, globaloneyism, etc.

3 Likes

Christopher Columbus: A Progressive Tool for Discrediting America

The Left’s vicious assault on American history ensues.
Wed Oct 16, 2019
Bruce Thornton

The recent attacks on historical monuments by the “woke” progressive Philistines, and the New York Times’s “1619 Project” aimed at rewriting America’s history as a racist plot, are just the latest in the left’s long assault on American history. Long before this current iconoclasm, Christopher Columbus has been the arch-villain in the left’s Orwellian revision of American history as peculiarly and irredeemably evil from its birth.

Attacking and demonizing American history predates the current frenzy of revisionism and virtue-signaling, for it is one of the progressive left’s favorite tools for undermining the patriotic solidarity that binds us together and undergirds our political order.

This long assault on America’s founding and exceptionalism has been a weapon of the left for weakening the US’s most successful and powerful enemy. The left can never forgive the US for achieving “prosperity, power, the tendency towards uniformity of economic conditions,” as Raymond Aron pointed out in 1957, “by private initiative, by competition rather than State intervention” and the “revolutionary code.” The left has to discredit America’s foundations in order to show that its success has come at too great a price––the institutionalization of racist oppression and inequality that has created “white privilege” and “white supremacism.” What better place to start than with Christopher Columbus, who began the evil colonization of and genocide against the innocent American peoples? And Columbus’s most malign heir has been the United States.

The staleness of these reductive clichés about the European contact with the New World were obvious in 1992 during the quincentennial celebration of Columbus’s arrival in the Americas. A “wanted poster” circulated by an indigenous people’s activist group was typical of the rhetoric at the time: “Wanted: Christopher Columbus . . . for grand theft, genocide, racism, initiating the destruction of a culture, rape, torture, and instigating the big lie.” Even then this melodramatic revision of history was stale. In 1925 poet William Carlos Williams had written, “The main islands were thickly populated with a peaceful folk when Christopher Columbus found them. But of the orgy of blood which followed, no man has written. It is the tortured soul of the world.” Since then decrying Columbus and the U.S. has been an annual event. Even The Sopranos in 2002 made the regular Columbus Day protests part of an episode’s plot.

This revisionist, semi-mythic, reductionist view of history has two dimensions. The first is the inveterate evil of the Europeans, and later Americans, who colonized the land and displaced its peaceful inhabitants. From the very beginning, Europeans shoehorned Amerindians into the old Classical Golden Age myth of a simple people living in harmony with nature, with no cities, laws, diseases, private property, or war. As Amerigo Vespucci wrote in 1505, “neither do they have goods of their own, but all things are held in common,” and they “live according to nature.” Sir Walter Raleigh explicitly invoked the Golden Age: “We found the people most gentle, loving, loving, and faithful, void of all guile and treason, such as lived after the manner of the golden age.”

The other side of the coin involved turning the Europeans into evil oppressors committing genocide against the pacifist, nature-loving indigenous peoples, the clichéd plot of hundreds of movies like Dances with Wolves, Pocahontas, and Avatar. These wicked Europeans, as Kirkpatrick Sale wrote in 1992, came from a “dark Other World, a world of sorrow and evil,” whose sole driving force was a “lust for gold” and the “imperative of human domination and control of the natural world” with its attendant “pollution, extermination, cruelty, destruction, and despoliation.”

Today this long tradition of idealizing American Indians as proto-communists and ecologists has made them useful clubs for beating an American capitalist culture that oppresses the innocent “other” and ravages nature with our of “technological hubris,” as Al Gore put it. And idealizing the New World’s indigenes, especially those in North America, has also been an advertisement for collectivist political philosophies like socialism, which promises to restore that lost Golden Age of communal ownership, peace, equality, and “social justice” once enjoyed by America’s first inhabitants.

The reality of life in pre-contact America, of course, was radically different from these politicized myths, just as the promises of Marxism––like Trotsky’s “new man,” a “higher sociological type of superman” who “will become incomparably strong, wiser, more subtle”––were radically different from the nightmare of gulags, torture, man-made famines, and 100 million murdered in the name of communism. The native of the New World were not peaceful, but like tribal bands across the globe were continuously raiding and killing each other, not to mention practicing, again like the ancient Celts or Teutons of the Old World, fiendishly cruel methods of torture. Neither were they natural ecologists, “living lightly on the land,” as today’s ecologists claim. They exploited their environment in order to survive, using fire to shape the landscape to that end, and fire-drives and stampedes of game over cliffs to kill more than they could ever use. Their impact on nature was limited by their small numbers, and by the crudity of their stone-tipped weapons.

In other words, like developing nations today, their first priority was not protecting “mother nature” but exploiting and managing it to ensure their survival. The tragedy of the collision of worlds begun by Columbus’s voyages was not the result of uniquely evil “whites” who invaded and committed genocide against gentle, peace-loving peoples “of color,” but that of human nature and its universal drive to invade, conquer, and appropriate the resources of other. The Oglala Sioux chief Black Hawk recognized this truth that today’s sleek, well-fed idealizers ignore. At the Fort Laramie conference with the U.S. Cavalry in 1851, he justified the Sioux’s rights to the lands south of the Platte River that the U.S. wanted them to vacate: “Those lands once belonged to the Kiowas and the Crows,” Black Hawk said, “but we whipped those nations out of them, and in this we did what the white men do when they want the land of the Indians.” Like all tribal peoples, the right to possess, exploit, and control territory was based on force, not abstract law. The tragedy for the Indians was that a super-tribe had landed on their shores, one armed with greater numbers, superior weapons, and unfamiliar pathogens that did most of the killing.

If we are to criticize the Europeans, then, it should be based on the fact that they should have known better given their more advanced civilization. What is truly unique about the collision of cultures in the New World is that from the beginning there were Europeans who chastised the violence and cruelty of the explorers and colonizers. In 1511, the Dominican priest Antonio de Montesinos scolded his fellow Spaniards, “You are in mortal sin and live and die in it because of the cruelty and tyranny that you use against these innocent peoples . . . . Are these Indians not Men? Do they not have souls? Are you not obliged to love them as you love yourselves?” So too Pedro de Cieza de León, who wrote, “It is no small sorrow to reflect that we Christians have destroyed so many kingdoms. For wherever Christians have passed, conquering and discovering, it seems as though a fire has consumed everything.” And the most passionate defender of the Indian, Bartolomé de las Casas, instructed priests to deny absolution, the forgiveness of sin, to anybody who abused and owned Indians.

That’s the historical truth that today’s self-loathing Europeans and Americans ignore: the sins of the West have been the sins of a universal human nature. What makes the West exceptional are not those sins, but its self-criticism that acknowledged and condemned them, thus creating the possibility of overcoming them. We should not, like today’s rich, spoiled Westerners, just demonize the West for being more efficient at indulging those human sins because of the dynamic culture and technologies that brought Europeans to the New World and magnified their destructive power. We should also acknowledge the fact that they recognized them as sins that we should struggle to overcome.

But such a mature, realist understanding of history is beyond today’s progressives who, still enthralled by utopian political delusions, reduce non-Western peoples to idealized stereotypes that diminish their complex humanity and historical reality. But Leftist have always been “terrible simplifiers,” as Jacob Burkhardt called all those utopian dreamers promising heaven on earth. Ideas useful for that goal are valuable, despite their lies and distortions, despite the cost in blood and pain from their application––just as we see today, from the corruption of the Federal swamp to the street-thuggery of Antifa.

Demonizing Christopher Columbus and idealizing his victims are such ideas, and continue because they are tools for transforming our country. And history­­––in all its complexity, mixed motives, failed good intentions, and tragic consequences––is the collateral damage of that project.

Who criticizes Christian Churches by making **** up.

Yes they are, and you did it. Care to recant? Or do I have to keep hounding you.?

You’re not taking us off on another one of your tangents.

Your accusation was the tangent.

It’s not my fault that you screwed up while doing it. You should have read on this history before making comments.

Here, I’ll help you correct where you went wrong.

Why don’t you just admit that AOC and the squad are your heroes, AS, and stop wearing those Goldwater and Norquist fig leaves? Anyone who goes on the way you do about Columbus is a radical leftist. A normal person who thinks that Columbus was an ogre expresses that opinion and moves on. They don’t go on like a member of Antifa.

As I tried to explain to you in the past, people were brutal in his time. Short of a true saint, people who were involved in government and politics were often cutthroats. They usually had to be that to acquire and hold a position. In those days, many nice guys finished last or dead. I came to this conclusion after compiling a book of the history of the British kings for my coin collection.

All of this left wing hand wringing about Columbus is aimed at discrediting American values, culture and history. The Communist revolutionaries start by rewriting history and then replace it with their narrative. The Howard Zimm history of America is one of the books of their bible. It is filled with lies to push the collectivist agenda.

Why don’t you stop being lazy?

When you repeat the same tired tactics, the lack of effort shows.

Even running to political polemics, doesn’t hide it.

You use lazy personal attacks, to excuse your poor research.

If you spent half the time learning geopolitics and economics as you do on the latest political bickering, you’d be up to speed. Why you don’t is a mystery to me. I guess you just like glitzy tribalism more than actually understanding the world we live in.

Like those people who buy celebrity gossip tabloids.

I guess I got under you skin. That’s good. I don’t care for liberals who bring up names like “Goldwater and Norquist” make conservatives think twice about their positions, like opposition to open borders and far left interpretations of history. It’s phony method to make a point. You should bring in facts to make your point on your own.

I also don’t post links to the works of others to make my point. I put it in my own words.

No, I’m not lazy. I have opinions based upon my studies, and you don’t like them. That’s what is at the heart of matter.

1 Like

I don’t nor need to care what the “left wing” says. I didn’t learn about De Las Casas from them.

You are trying to frame this as left vs right, but he predates it all. A fact you can’t seem to internalize, so I’m going to knock you over the head with it until you get it.

Your framework is limited, and chained to the modern day. He is not from the modern day, he has no bearing on your political BS. He is an historical figure, who lived during Columbus’ time, who criticized his actions

Do you get it yet?

If you cannot respond to him, than frankly, what do I care what you have to say here?

You can’t even take on what he said, you’re not taking this on. De Las Casas gave us Columbus’ journal, it’s thanks to him we know anything personal about the man.